As Congregationalist as the Congregationalists
“We are congregationalists, and we are going to remain congregationalists. But there is one thing we can do. We can become better congregationalists, — as good as the Congregationalists themselves. ”
Several weeks ago, ACGC released the Executive Council’s proposed amendments to the bylaws in light of the recommendations of the “Restructuring Task Force.” In the days since, there has been some confusion as to whether or not the proposals represent a departure from congregationalist polity. In light of this, Nathaniel Bickford (a chairman of the restructuring task force) wrote a helpful article explaining the congregationalist convictions that stand behind the proposal.
Still, I have observed signs that misgivings remain. With that in mind, I thought it might be best to get practical through an exercise of comparison.
Some congregationalists would spurn the notion of denominational association altogether, maintaining that churches should be entirely independent. This is not the path Advent Christians have pursued, as I have related elsewhere. Given that we do have a denomination, albeit a sometimes reluctant one, it would seem most appropriate to compare ourselves with another congregationalist denomination. Do the proposed changes depart or align with congregationalist practice?
I can think of no other better point of comparison than the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC). The CCCC’s bylaws are publicly available and can be seen here. Rather than working through a line-by-line comparison, I want to highlight and summarize just two basic areas. Under each, I will report how the CCCC does things and what ACGC currently does and what we propose to do.
Denominational Standards of Membership
The CCCC
First, it is worth pointing out how the CCCC’s preamble resonates with what Nathaniel Bickford has expressed, stating:
We therefore as autonomous churches declaring our unqualified belief in the entire Word of God written, humbly invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have covenanted together to form such an association.
We must keep this backdrop in view.
Under Article II, “Purpose”, the CCCC makes clear they continue to be committed to “the Scriptural principles of the autonomy of the local church and the freedom of the believer in Christ.” They even state under Article IV that, “We believe that each local church is ultimately answerable only to Jesus Christ, and not to any association, conference, council, synod or any other ecclesiastical body.” The Advent Christian reader might think the Congregationalists are ramping up to assume some noncreedalist posture, but that is not what follows.
Under Article V, “Membership”, we see that the covenantal backdrop of this association remains firmly in place and that the aforementioned word, “ultimately” must not go unnoticed. Because while each church is “ultimately” answerable only to Christ, this does not mean the CCCC is without denominational standards of membership. Given the importance of the comparison, I now offer a lengthy quotation from Article V:
Membership in this Conference shall be attained by the voluntary association of churches, ministers, Consecrated Laborers (Commissioned Christian Workers, Students under Conference Care, Lay Preachers) or individual lay members who find themselves in full accord with the Statement of Faith and Statement of Polity (Articles III, IV) of this Constitution, the Code of Ethics for Ministers and Churches, and with the general principles of this Conference as set forth in the Constitution and By-Laws. Conference membership, whether of church, minister, Consecrated Laborer or lay members, may be subject to review by the ensuing Annual Meeting of the Conference. Church membership shall be accorded on the basis of the standards of the Conference, as set forth in the By-Laws of this Constitution. Ministerial membership shall be accorded on the basis of the approved ministerial standards of the Conference, as set forth in the By-Laws of this constitution. Consecrated Laborers shall be accorded standing on the basis of the respective stands of the Conference, as set forth in the By-Laws of this Constitution. Churches are not necessarily barred from membership because of other affiliations so long as they adhere to the Statement of Faith and the Statement of Polity and the workings of the Conference. [author’s note: see also section V. “Standards and Membership for Churches]
To briefly summarize, the CCCC does not compel anyone to be a member of their denomination – it is a voluntary association. However, anyone who would be a member of the CCCC must accept and remain in accord with the beliefs and bylaws of the denomination.
The Present ACGC Bylaws and the Proposed Changes
Presently, the only standard of membership in the Advent Christian General Conference, as stated in its constitution and bylaws, is that, “The membership of this body shall consist of churches which are members of Advent Christian Conferences; of Conferences which are members of one of the five Advent Christian Regional Associations; of the same Regional Associations of which the Conferences are members.” As far as associate membership is concerned, acceptance comes by vote of the ACGC delegate body with the recommendation of the Executive Council.
There is no requirement of any agreement in belief. As far as I have found in my research, except for my own conference (Heritage; interested in learning about any others), the only Advent Christian bodies that clearly indicate standards of belief for membership would be our local churches. In theory, the possible differences in belief could be infinite among our churches, rendering ACGC a grab bag of religious belief.
The proposed changes to the bylaws, especially when paired with the 2026 DOP, address this weakness in a way that matches well with the practice of the CCCC. First, if adopted, the 2026 DOP under principle X essentially aligns with the CCCC: The Church is locally manifested in congregations, and while retaining their autonomy (“liberties and preregatives”) these churches freely come together in covenant association.
We affirm that the Church is the Body of Christ; that it is an institution of divine origin, which includes all true Christians; that the Church visibly manifests itself in local congregations of believers; that these local churches are governed under the authority of Christ, with congregational involvement and biblical patterns of leadership such as elders and deacons; and that these churches should freely covenant together, agreeing to uphold standards common to the whole.
We deny that the liberties and prerogatives of the local church would preclude cooperation with a denominational body in maintaining such freely agreed-upon standards of membership.
Just as the CCCC indicates that their members must accord with their denomination’s beliefs and the policies as laid out in their constitution and bylaws, we have proposed very much the same in principle, under the proposed Article I, Section 2 (also for ministers under the proposed Article VIII, Section 1):
Membership shall only include those regions, conferences, churches, and associate member organizations, that:
a. Affirm and uphold the Advent Christian Statement of Faith
b. Affirm and uphold the Advent Christian Declaration of Principles
c. Affirm and uphold the Enduring Resolutions of the General Conference
d. Financially contribute, directly or indirectly, to the ministry of the General Conference
e. Cooperate with the provisions set forth in these Articles of Association and Bylaws
As far this point of comparison is concerned, the proposed changes are completely in keeping with congregationalism as practiced by the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference.
Oversight of Membership
The CCCC
Oversight of the membership of the CCCC is provided by their Credentials Committee. With respect to our interests, the most concise statement under Article V says that, “A church, minister, Consecrated Laborer, or individual lay member may be dismissed from membership in this Conference for continued inactivity, at the decision of the Credentials Committee and the ratification of the Conference.”
Going to section III of the bylaws, “Ministries”, “Credentials Committee”, more detail is provided concerning the composition and role of the committee:
A Credentials Committee of five shall be appointed by the Board of Directors on a rotating basis for three year terms; the Conference Minister shall be an ex-officio member of this Committee without vote. This Committee shall have the following duties:
The Committee shall receive and review all applications for membership in the Conference. In making such a review, the Committee shall make every reasonable effort to investigate and interview all individuals making application to the Conference. The investigation should include, if at all possible, a personal interview by a Conference Care Committee member or their designee. They shall either approve or disapprove the application, or refer it to the Board of Directors for review. In the event of approval, the Committee has power to grant membership subject to approval by the next Annual Meeting of the Conference at which the applicant is present.
The Committee shall take action with regard to requests for transferal or dismissal, such action being subject to approval by the next Annual Meeting of the Conference except where dismissal has been requested by the party in question.
All applications for membership, transfer, or dismissal, either approved or disapproved by the Committee and all such applications then in process are to be listed and circulated by the Committee to the entire membership of the Conference not less than thirty days before the Annual Meeting. Only those so listed and circulated shall be presented to the Annual Meeting for ratification.
The Committee shall have the power to renew ministerial licenses granted by the Conference upon application by the licensee.
The Committee shall have the power to receive applications from prospective students who wish to prepare themselves for some form of the Gospel ministry and who desire to come under Conference Care. Such action will be subject to approval by the Conference at the Annual Meeting.
The Committee, through the Endorsing Agent for Military Chaplains and other institutional chaplains, shall report to the Board of Directors regarding the endorsement of any ministerial member seeking to practice an institutional or the military chaplaincy.
The Committee shall make an annual review of the ministerial activities of those with full memberships or licenses to determine the current out reach of the Conference and the propriety of continued ministerial status of the members.
The Committee shall make a careful investigation of those cases where discipline may be necessary as ordered by the Constitution (Article V, Sections 3-4).
The members of this committee are appointed by the Board of Directors (CCCC’s Executive Council) and include the Conference President (CCCC’s Executive Director) as an ex officio member. The committee stands both to receive concerns about any of its members and to review any of its members as needed. The committee has power to make provisional decisions membership in the conference until their next annual meeting, at which time the conference body will need to ratify any decisions by their approval.
The Present ACGC Bylaws and the Proposed Changes
At this time, the only committee as provided under ACGC bylaws that bears any similarity to the CCCC’s Credentials Committee is the ACGC Judiciary Committee. Under the relevant portion of the current Article VIII it states, “A Judiciary Committee of five members, one from each of the five Regions, shall constitute a final Court of Appeal to hear all cases which have failed to find adjustment in the local church, or in the local Conference, or in the local Region, or cases referred to it by the Executive Council of the General Conference.”
Notably, there is no detail given as to how the judiciary committee will bring about a right “adjustment.” Notable also is that this committee only receives such cases, it is not a standing body of oversight and review; if problems go unreported by the parties involved, they are left unaddressed. To use an example (now repeated and classic), what recourse does the ACGC delegate body presently have if a conference decides to go the way of the United Methodist Church and begin ordaining those who embrace a same-sex lifestyle? We have no standards of belief and we have no guidelines as to how we would uphold such standards.
Again, the proposed changes to the bylaws aim to rectify this weakness in a way that is very similar to CCCC practice; I am going to avoid quoting at length for sake of space, but you can review those changes here. The General Conference Ministerial Committee, found under the proposed Article VIII, replaces the Judiciary committee because it includes and now extends the responsibilities of that committee. The GCMC would be composed of five regionally elected representatives and five (ordained) regional superintendents. Notably, this is a larger body (10) than the CCCC (5) and its members are drawn from the regions rather than being appointed by the Executive Council. ACGC bylaws currently state (Article V, Section 3) that the Executive Director is an ex officio member (without vote) of all committees and so the same would apply here as with the CCCC.
The GCMC oversees the members of the General Conference to ensure they are upholding the standards agree upon by the ACGC delegate body. Part of this oversight includes receiving a regular annual report from the various region/conference ministerial committees. If there is a departure from the standards of membership, the role of the GCMC is to provide recommended action when the local conference seeks their counsel or when the conference is failing to uphold the ACGC standards. The GCMC provides oversight, but it does not exist to micromanage; it is only required to meet twice a year.
Ultimately, the GCMC only possesses the power of recommendation. Unlike the CCCC, it would not have the power to make provisional decisions that await ratification. If decisive action regarding membership needs to be taken, the GCMC can only recommend such action and await the decision of the ACGC delegate body at the next Triennial convention.
I believe it is also worth noting (not as a difference with the CCCC) that the recommendations of the GCMC do not pass through the Executive Council. The council does not appoint the committee (remember, members are from the regions) and the committee does not answer to the council. This an important guard against investing too much power and responsibility in the Executive Council.
Conclusion
It is easy for our gaze to become fixed in our own little Advent Christian world. I hope this information from the outside, perhaps new to most of you, provides helpful context as you consider how ACGC can better function as a congregationalist denomination. Being a congregationalist denomination does not require us to forgo standards of belief. Being a congregationalist denomination does not require us to deprive ourselves of avenues of oversight and faithful recourse. As has been made clear here, just ask the congregationalists – it is possible to both affirm the autonomy of the local church and to embrace the wisdom and responsibility of maintaining standards in a covenant association of such churches.
In fact, I would say that both are good and necessary. I hope you agree.
[1] This quote from C.H. Hewitt comes from the bulletin quarterly, Advent Christian Advance, in an article entitled, Denominational Problems. If you want to understand the larger historical context, you can learn more in my article, A Short History of the Advent Christian Search for Structure.
